Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

THE COST OF OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

I

THE GROWTH OF EXPENDITURE

THE rapid increase of federal expenditure is a patent fact, not disputed in any quarter. A marked feature of the situation is the criticism of it made by those in actual charge of such expenditure. This prevails to an extent that is an extraordinary manifestation in a system of party government. Ordinarily the office of accusation is left to the opposition, while the attitude of the administration is one of apology and reserve. But in the present situation we find that the sharpest and most definite accusation comes from the front rank of the party which is in charge of the government, and which, by all sound constitutional theory, is responsible for the conditions that are thus denounced. This extraordinary situation, which raises constitutional questions that we shall have to consider in their place, simplifies my task in dealing with the present topic, for I am able to cite official admissions as to the rapidity with which our national expenditure is increasing.

One of these admissions comes from Mr. George B. Cortelyou, Secretary of the Treasury under President Roosevelt. While he held that eminent position, he prepared an article on "Regulation of the National

Budget," which was published in the North American Review for April, 1909. This article contains the following statement:

"The rapid growth of receipts and disbursements since the lowest point after the Civil War, and the recent tendency of disbursements to outstrip receipts, may be seen at a glance by comparing the Treasury reports at intervals of ten years as follows:

[blocks in formation]

“To put the comparison another way, which even more graphically illustrates the expansion: the growth in ordinary expenses for carrying on the Government, excluding interest on the public debt, but including payments for pensions and for many public works, was from $135,000,000, in 1878, to $638,000,000, in 1908 an increase of nearly 400 per cent in a generation."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1878 to

Meanwhile the increase of population 1908 inclusive was less than 84 per cent. Another of these official admissions comes from Mr. James A. Tawney, Chairman of the Committee of Appropriations of the House of Representatives. It is the custom of the chairman of the appropriations committee to give, at the close of each session, a summary of the appropriations made, with observations upon the condition of the public treasury. These reviews are full of valuable information and are worthy of greater public attention than they receive. In his review at the end of the second session of the 60th Congress,

March 4, 1909, Chairman Tawney made a startling statement in regard to the appropriations made during the session. He said: "The sum total exceeds the amount of present and prospective revenues." In his comments he remarked:

"In no period except in time of war have the expenditures of our National Government increased so rapidly, both in the aggregate and per capita, as these expenditures have increased during the past eight years. This fact may well cause our people not only to pause and consider the cause of this very large increase in the annual expenditures of the Government, but also to consider the necessity of checking this growing tendency towards excess."

Still another admission comes from Mr. Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance. In an elaborate speech delivered in the Senate on April 10, 1909, he said:

"The rapidity with which our national expenditures have increased within the last three years is a source of anxiety if not of alarm. Simultaneously with the reduction in receipts of $60,000,000 from 1907 to 1909, we have had an increase in expenditures of $120,000,000.

"From an investigation more or less superficial, I am myself satisfied that the appropriations made last year could have been reduced at least $50,000,000 without impairing the efficiency of the public service. There are periods in the life of a nation when the spirit of extravagance pervades the atmosphere and the public money is scattered right and left, often without reference to the results to be secured. I hope and expect to see a radical reform in this direction."

No men can speak from more intimate knowledge than these three, the chiefs of financial administration in the executive department, in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate, respectively. It is deeply significant

that their testimony, independently supplied, is in such full agreement. But note how extraordinary is the situation thus presented. The executive department, which receives the people's money, and the legislative department, which gives out the people's money, are both exhibited in an attitude of remonstrance. Where, then, does the responsibility rest? What has become of the control of the purse, which is the traditional function of the representative body? That such a situation can exist is of itself evidence that in some way constitutional government has become seriously deranged.

Senator Aldrich's opinion that the appropriations of a single year were $50,000,000 in excess of actual needs is a startling averment. The estimate seems enormous, and yet it is corroborated by the testimony of others in a position to know what is going on. So long ago as 1897, Speaker Cannon, then Chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the House, reviewing the work of the 54th Congress, in a speech delivered March 4, 1897, declared: "The appropriations are, in my judgment, in excess of the legitimate demands of the public service." Referring to Secretary Cortelyou's statement, already cited, we find that the net disbursements for 1908 exceeded those for 1898 by $215,827,737. If Chairman Cannon was correct in his opinion that the appropriations were excessive when they were so much less than they have since become, Senator Aldrich's estimate of an annual waste of $50,000,000 seems to be justified, vast as is the amount. After all, it is less than 8 per cent of the present federal expenditure, and it does not seem to be an un

« AnkstesnisTęsti »